the disputes examined in this case. Therefore, the Court abstains from ordering the legislative reforms requested by the representatives in respect of the amendment of the National Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure. 302. Furthermore, as established in its case law, the Court recalls that it is aware that the domestic authorities are subject to the rule of law and, thus, are obliged to apply the legislative provisions in force.462 However, when a State is a party to an international treaty such as the American Convention, all its organs, including the judges and other bodies involved in the administration of justice, are also subject to it, which obliges them to ensure that the effects of the Convention’s provisions are not lessened by the application of norms that are contrary to its object and purpose. 303. The judges and organs responsible for the administration of justice at all levels are obliged to exercise ex officio control to ensure that domestic norms are in line with the American Convention, within their respective spheres of competence and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, the judges and organs for the administration of justice must take into account not only the treaty, but also its interpretation by the Inter-American Court, as the final interpreter of the American Convention. 463 304. Thus, for example, the highest courts of the region, such as the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica, 464 the Constitutional Court of Bolivia,465 the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic,466 the Constitutional Court of Peru,467 the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Argentina, 468 the Constitutional Court of Colombia,469 the Supreme Court of the Nation of Mexico, 470 and the Supreme Court of Panama471 have all referred to and applied this control of compatibility with the Convention, taking into account interpretations made by the Inter-American Court. 462 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124 and Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Serie C No. 239, para. 281. 463 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., para. 124 and Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, para. 282. 464 Cf. Judgment of May 9, 1995 delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica. Action of unconstitutionality. Opinion 2313-95 (File 0421-S-90), considering paragraph VII. 465 Cf. Judgment of May 10, 2010, delivered by the Constitutional Court of Bolivia (Case file No. 2006-1338127-RAC), section III.3. on “the Inter-American Human Rights System. Grounds for and effects of the judgments delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” 466 Cf. Decision No. 1920-2003 issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic on November 13, 2003. 467 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court of Peru on July 21, 2006, (Case file No. 2730-2006PA/TC), reasoning #12 and judgment 00007-2007-PI/TC issued on June 19, 2007 by the Constitutional Court of Peru in Plenary (Lawyers’ Professional Association of El Callao v. Congress of the Republic), reasoning #26. 468 Cf. Judgment issued on December 23, 2004, by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Argentine Nation (Case file 224. XXXIX), “Espósito, Miguel Angel re/incidental plea of prescription of the criminal action filed by his defense counsel,” considering paragraph 6 and Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Argentine Nation, Mazzeo, Julio Lilo et al., appeal for annulment and unconstitutionality. M. 2333. XLII. and others of July 13, 2007, para. 20. 469 Cf. Judgment C-010/00 delivered by the Constitutional Court of Colombia on January 19, 2000, para. 6. 470 Cf. Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, Case file “Miscellaneous” 912/2010, ruling of July 14, 2011. 471 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Panama, Decision No. 240 of May 12, 2010, ordering compliance with the judgment of January 27, 2009, of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Santander Tristan Donoso v. Panama. 95